Forcing utilities to produce more expensive electricity without any other benefit is simply foolish.

Krugman writes in the NYTimes:

And, as I’ve already suggested, environmental action could actually have a positive effect. Suppose that electric utilities, in order to meet the new rules, decide to close some existing power plants and invest in new, lower-emission capacity. Well, that’s an increase in spending, and more spending is exactly what our economy needs.

For someone who is supposed to be an economist, it is intersting just how limited Krugman’s understanding of fundemental economics is. Like listening to the Greens talk about how nasty their opposition is for reducing handouts to the poor when they force those same poor to pay more for petrol and electricity with their policy. Poor buggers just flat ‘don’t get it.’

I’m guessing he can get some power companies on board with higher prices along with free money and less scrutiny for favored projects. Light bulb companies haven’t exactly lost any sleep with having their cheapest product outlawed.

I have a hard time believing Krugman earned a Nobel prize. Probably was awarded for a similar reason that Obama got his Nobel peace prize. Krugman should go down and sell his theories to the coal miners in West Virginia, Pennsylvnia etc when they no longer have any work. Of course being an elite, it doesn’t bother him that they are put out of work since they don’t and shouldn’t count for anything.

It doesn’t count if you indirectly take money from the poor to finance saving the earth (or anything else for that matter). Because it’s not the government taking the money, it’s the evil power companies that should work for free just because power is essential. Surely you knew that.